posted 19 January 2005 07:34 AM
The NDP is Not the Solution, it is Part of the Problemby Liz Wednesday, Jan. 19, 2005 at 3:53 AM

Why not the NDP?

"The purpose of social democratic parties is to demobilize, disorient, and derail any mass movement that shows signs of becoming a threat to the interests of the ruling class. They're part of the ideological control apparatus. The people who run these parties understand exactly what their job is, and are well paid for their services. As long as this scam keeps working, why would they abandon it? To do so might impair their future career prospects."

The public purse in BC....benefits from my tax donation on the wine, which goes into our schools and hospitals, expecially because the workers at the Liquor stores saved the Liquor Control Board from privatization, for now. We need to elect an NDP government to make sure that the privatization of this province gets stopped in it's tracks ASAP. And then we need to hold an NDP govenment to it's promise of no more privatization, right, comrades? Right, just like we needed to elect a COPE city council to make sure that no public money would be wasted on the Olympics or the privatization of the transit system. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, you ... you can't fool me again, to use a Bushism. Except that the true believers in the NDP apparently CAN be fooled again ... and again ... actually, there seems to be no limit to the number of times they can be fooled. There's a sucker born every minute.

Does anyone remember what the former heroic leaders of the BC working class are up to now? That's right, Glen Clark is a corporate executive for Pattison Enterprises, and Ujjal Dosanjh has revealed himself as the neo-Liberal (big "L") stooge he always was. How many times does social democracy have to sell out to the corporations before people stop thinking it's some kind of aberration, and realize that this is what it's actually for? The purpose of social democratic parties is to demobilize, disorient, and derail any mass movement that shows signs of becoming a threat to the interests of the ruling class. They're part of the ideological control apparatus. The people who run these parties understand exactly what their job is, and are well paid for their services. As long as this scam keeps working, why would they abandon it? To do so might impair their future career prospects.

A vote for the NDP is a vote for whatever the corporations will tolerate,and nothing more than that. It should be perfectly obvious by now that in the neo-liberal world order, the corporations are no longer willing to allow the existence of public services and social welfare programs to infringe on their superprofits. It's almost irrelevant which party is in office, except that because of the widespread delusion that the social democrats are in some way on our side, they can initiate attacks that the official representatives of the capitalist class could not. It was the demoralization and confusion produced by a decade of NDP government in BC which ensured that there would be no effective opposition after they had performed their historic function and the rollback of social reforms was accelerated by the succeeding regime. This pattern has been replicated in almost every developed country in the world; see in particular Tony Blair's "Labour" party in Britain and (former NDP Premier) Bob Rae's "Social Contract" with the workers of Ontario. In the US, the Democratic Party gets to perform this role, although they aren't actually social democrats, (although) many people think that they are.

If we can't organize a social movement capable of obstructing the neo-liberal agenda being pursued by the group of corporate servants who currently run the province, there's not much chance of being able to "hold an NDP government to its promises," either, once the corporations start telling them what's permissible and what isn't. The greatest single obstacle to the construction of such a movement is the idea that the fake-left careerists, bureaucrats, closet Liberals, and party hacks who control the NDP have anything positive to contribute to the process.Anyone still confused about this issue should consider the example provided by Operation Solidarity nineteen years ago, and more recently, by the aborted HEU strike. Once this movement begins to be successful, it can run its own candidates for government office; the people chosen for this task will need to be much more principled and radical than almost anyone now remaining in the NDP. Why would we let them fool us yet again?

(My thanks to "Liz" for writing this and to Phil from the Senior's Network for distributing it).

resist.ca/story/2005/1/17/225925/768

AND...

Don't forget Roy Romanow

Roy Romanow - former premier of saskatchewan - issued an endorsement of GENETIC ENGINEERING as he left office.

Saskatchewan now has another NDP premier and the province exports URANIUM to the US. That's URANIUM that can be used for nuclear weapons.

In New Brunswick - Yvonne Godin supported the toxic Bennet incinerator in the name of jobs - even though so many opposed its poison.

In Manitoba - Gary Doer lauded the appointment of Frank McKenna - after having visited NB to meet privately with George Bush Sr. and Bernard Lord a couple of years ago.

posted 19 January 2005 04:01 PM
If the radical left is becoming disgusted with the NDP, they I'd say "keep up the good work!"

Only by jettisoning the far-left can the NDP hope to become a governing party capable of achieving real progress -- instead of just talking about it and whining.

From: I was born to rub you, but you were born to rub me first! | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged

Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 19 January 2005 04:15 PM
O lord. Now I'm a corporate stooge. And here I just thought I looked a bit like Curly.
From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged

Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 19 January 2005 05:19 PM
I think the history of the NDP is mixed. Some NDP Premiers revealed themselves to be little more than Liberals. But I'll note that the author avoided the most succesful NDP and CCF governments - the Douglas/Lloyd administration in Saskathcewan that created Medicare, the Barrett administration in BC that brought in public auto insurance, even Glen Clark (whose job at a sign factory hardly places him amongst the ruling elite) stood his ground on social spending and government's role in the economy in the face of a whithering neo-liberal onslaught. These leaders have not only brought tangible change to people but have helped shift mass consciiousness in this country - to the degree that average Canaidians now think socialized medicine is a right and will fight for it. That's no small feat.

The author's analysis of "social democratic" parties seems cutting edge but is actually pretty dated. It goes back to World War One when the First International split over support for the War and now - nearly a hundred years later - some on the self-styled ultraleft are still throwing the same rhetoric around as though it were somehow relevent.

In the current context the phrase "social democratic" doesn't mean anything. The term, as once used, defined the split between "social democrats" and "communists" - but now, with no viable mass communist parties anywhere on the horizon, the term is utterly meaningless. It's farcical to use a sentence like this in the context of the NDP:

quote: The purpose of social democratic parties is to demobilize, disorient, and derail any mass movement that shows signs of becoming a threat to the interests of the ruling class

What mass movement? There is, simply, no other left-wing movement in the wings for the NDP to undermine. I think the author is basing her comments on a rather fanciful notion of the state of protest in Canada today. I don't know about BC's Solidarity, but Ontario's Days of Action went about as far as it could go without bommeranging back. A lot of people like to believe that the "pink paper" unions sold out the working class but the ugly reality was that most union members had little desire to topple Harris, much less the state. That's sad but true and saying it's true - over and over again - just provides people with an excuse to stop pushing for genuine change.

Bottom line is that the NDP is the only mass party of the working class in Canada right now. And frankly, it is about as radical as it can be. As far as I can tell this reflects the need for affecting the public consciousness. It's not as if people are hungering for a more radical alternative that's just not being offered. The real question for people who want radical change (at least at this point in time) is how to steer the NDP to both winning government power and being part of a movement for radical change.

posted 19 January 2005 11:16 PM
I support moving the NDP to the left, in fact radically to the left. I do however understnad that before we can ever hope to do this we need to move a good chunk of the canadian population left. Only then can we move the NDP left, or form a new broad-based working class political entiry seperate from the NDP.
From: BC | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged

Negad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7863

posted 19 January 2005 11:23 PM
Thanks somuch blahyaddamumble for posting the article and Burns I agree with so much of you said. It really feels good to see these kind of discussions. It is so disapponting to see people only dfend something becsue it is named certain thing just because one doesn't want to rock the boat. If a a boat headign towards causign more distruction for people then that boat has to be rocked shaken and drawned and a new one should be built. Thanks again

posted 20 January 2005 05:14 PM
In response to the article at the top, really. I think it applies to a lot of criticism I disagree with by the ultraleft. There are legitimate reasons to get on the NDP's case (opportunism, cowardice, bad analysis, unnecesary compromise) but the one I hear most often is "We need a revolution and the NDP isn't offering it" - which assumes that if the NDP did offer it people would jump at it. It's not true. And it doesn't get any truer because people really wish it were.

What Engels says in this sentence is. I know you want to change the world. You want it as soon as possible. Good for you. But just because you say it's time for one doesn't mean that everyone will agree with you. Just because you want it doesn't mean that it's going to happen. It's not time for a revolution just because you really wish it was.

quote:Originally posted by Burns:What Engels says in this sentence is. I know you want to change the world. You want it as soon as possible. Good for you. But just because you say it's time for one doesn't mean that everyone will agree with you. Just because you want it doesn't mean that it's going to happen. It's not time for a revolution just because you really wish it was.